call 911 and ask if they have an officer there. They'll know.I ask this question out of curiosity, if you are inside your house, get the knock and shouts of "police, open up" etc. Can you ask for something more reassuring like turning on the lights on the police car?
What the heck does "militarization of police" mean anyways? Best I can tell, it's just a phrase invented to sell the idea that we'll somehow better off if we don't let police have more effective tools to do their job.MiLiTaRiZaTiOn Of PoLiCe.
The explanations there seem strange to me. This implies if I randomly shot someone for no reason, and they died, it would be involuntary manslaughter.
You mean like how the workers act while working in the 21 industries that are more dangerous than LE?Once again, a reasonable response.
Would be nice if we could all approach situation like the officers faced with less trepidation and maybe a phone call to the address first. Shame that things have gotten so dangerous that we have to approach every call with SWAT like preparation and nerves keyed up to fight or flight levels. Only long term solution is more personal contact between people in a community and caring about and for each other. Tough to swim upstream against the current though.
Well, traditionally, if you need an MRAP to do your job, you are in the military.What the heck does "militarization of police" mean anyways? Best I can tell, it's just a phrase invented to sell the idea that we'll somehow better off if we don't let police have more effective tools to do their job.
There is no law requiring you to ever open your door. Again, if police have the authority to enter your home, a locked door is simply an inconvenience for them.I ask this question out of curiosity, if you are inside your house, get the knock and shouts of "police, open up" etc. Can you ask for something more reassuring like turning on the lights on the police car?
To me, militarization of the police is the further arming of departments with surplus military hardware and then using said hardware and tactics in situations where it's not warranted either to send a message, or because policy calls for its use more than it should be used.What the heck does "militarization of police" mean anyways? Best I can tell, it's just a phrase invented to sell the idea that we'll somehow better off if we don't let police have more effective tools to do their job.
Is not your logic similar to the left that would take away our ARs and similar guns because they are "weapons of war"?Well, traditionally, if you need an MRAP to do your job, you are in the military.
Then the .gov started handing out MRAPs to PDs like Oprah handing out Pontiacs.
It's hard to look at this and not call it "militarization of police".
You know if you give a bunch of boys toys like this, they are gonna find a reason play with them.
I think I see what he's saying after all, though. There's a very wide middle ground that lies between saying it should be illegal for police departments to own and use AR's and MRAP's (which I don't think is his position), vs. handing out old military hardware like candy to departments that might not really need it, and will basically have to invent excuses to ever use it.Is not your logic similar to the left that would take away our ARs and similar guns because they are "weapons of war"?
Should the police be denied vehicles that provide protection from ambush?
There are civilian versions of MRAPs. They cost between $100,00 and $180,000.
Buying a Civilian MRAP: Everything You Need to Know
Are you thinking about buying a civilian MRAP? Learn all the most critical information to make an informed purchasing decision.armormax.com
Exactly, its a solution looking for a problem. How many times do you hear SWAT teams getting ambushed in general, let alone by thugs with anti-material rifles and RPG's. Beat cops in their cruisers are far more likely to get ambushed than even an armored van full of door kickers ready to go. We do however hear stories of police literally demolishing exterior walls of people's houses with these MRAP's. You get issued a bunch of hammers, a lot of things start to look like nails.I think I see what he's saying after all, though. There's a very wide middle ground that lies between saying it should be illegal for police departments to own and use AR's and MRAP's (which I don't think is his position), vs. handing out old military hardware like candy to departments that might not really need it, and will basically have to invent excuses to ever use it.
Which of those industries deals with the danger of possible violent assault on a daily basis?You mean like how the workers act while working in the 21 industries that are more dangerous than LE?
Yeah. What he said.I think I see what he's saying after all, though. There's a very wide middle ground that lies between saying it should be illegal for police departments to own and use AR's and MRAP's (which I don't think is his position), vs. handing out old military hardware like candy to departments that might not really need it, and will basically have to invent excuses to ever use it.
I happen to have a sister that did almost 30 years in Jacksonville, two sons that carry automaticWhich of those industries deals with the danger of possible violent assault on a daily basis?
I'm thinking that falling off of a scaffolding or getting caught in the gears of a combine probably is not really relevant with reference to the unique danger faced by LE. Mitigating against known risks in other dangerous professions is quite a bit less challenging than dealing with the unknown risks of working with the public.
Comparing the danger between different professions by looking at fatality rates is simplistic. There are other factors in play when taking "danger" into account.
If you think there is no difference, please tell me how you would feel about a loved one dying in an accident vs being murdered by an illegal alien.
Danger is Danger, it either is or it isn't a Danger.Which of those industries deals with the danger of possible violent assault on a daily basis?
I'm thinking that falling off of a scaffolding or getting caught in the gears of a combine probably is not really relevant with reference to the unique danger faced by LE. Mitigating against known risks in other dangerous professions is quite a bit less challenging than dealing with the unknown risks of working with the public.
Comparing the danger between different professions by looking at fatality rates is simplistic. There are other factors in play when taking "danger" into account.
If you think there is no difference, please tell me how you would feel about a loved one dying in an accident vs being murdered by an illegal alien.
I happen to have a sister that did almost 30 years in Jacksonville, two sons that carry automatic
Danger is Danger, it either is or it isn't a Danger.
Do you want to break it down even more than statistics?
A whole lot of LE tend to die at their own hands and making poor decisions.
Its an easy statistic to cut in half with a few changes.
Maybe OSHA should write some of the protocols that will save LEO's lives?
Thats the response I expected from you. Its an easy field to cut at least half of the deaths from happening.
I saw. Saying "F" ALL police because you don't like what 1, 2, 3, or even a dozen officers have done is childish. But go ahead, write ALL 300k off...See below. Continue to do stupid stuff like this, I'll stand by what I said.
It is indeed an officer safety issue but it has nothing to do with the peep hole and everything to do with getting shot. Standing in front of a door will get you killed...PERIOD.Just watched the body cam.
So they yelled "police", "sheriffs office", "open the door", and moved to the side so they couldn't be seen through the peephole.
I get it, officer safety. But what's to look stop a criminal from doing the same and shouting that?
"Officer safety" doesn't meet the reasonableness test as set out in the SCOTUS decision Graham v. Connor decision.Is it safe to assume a reasonable person would answer the door armed? Is the correct response to "light them up" over "officer safety" when they open the door?
Officer safety isn't a bandwagon, it's a real thing that needs to be adhered to. Just because there are officers that don't follow it doesn't mean it's not important. Officers are human and when nothing bad happens to them, they become complacent.Everyone is quick to jump on the officer safety bandwagon, yet I still see so many poorly positioned traffic stops where officer safety couldn't have been further from their minds when they activated their lights, initiated the stop and/or stopped the car and positioned theirs. Honestly surprised more aren't hit during traffic stops, but I think ISP has had many cars hit this year doing just that.
I think you will find that most Circuit Courts have ruled against this type of situation. I say MOST as I'm not sure what the 9th says about it, they are usually always the outlier. Here in the 7th, possession alone is NOT PC for deadly force. Now, it doesn't take much more to establish PC as it's actually not a very high bar to reach in the first place...like 30% likely.The issue is the precedence.
The precedence that possessing a firearm means you are fair game to be shot by a police officer.